Bamboozler-in-Chief on Women's Health Issues

President Obama made the following statement at a rally in Houston yesterday:

And, yes, change is health care reform that we passed after a century of trying... Because of this law, preventive care is now covered. And, yes, that includes preventive care for women -- checkups, mammograms, birth control.

Mammograms, eh? Because of your health care "reform"? You "fighting" for it?? I can believe that. Only, which side were you fighting for, Barry?

We fought for this because the top doctors, the medical experts in the country said this kind of preventive care saves women's lives. We fought for it because we know it saves money. It's a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one. So when you see politicians who are trying to take us back to the days when this care was more expensive and harder to get for women...you just remember we can't let them get away with it. We fought for this change. We're going to protect this change. It's the right thing to do.

A presidential candidate blathered on one time about "just words". How does Obama's record stand up to his rhetoric?

Remember all the way back to 2009? (Hint: Gasoline was cheaper then!) Obama is betting that you won't. 2009 was when the Obama administration tried to "reform" health care by reducing women's access to mammograms.

The standard schedule of starting screening mammograms at age 40 may soon change, and breast cancer prevention strategies would be improved, according to the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Women may not begin to have screening mammograms until they are 50, and they may cease doing breast self-exams altogether, if the newest guidelines for breast cancer screening from the USPSTF are widely adopted. In Canada and the United Kingdom, 50 is already the age at which screening mammography is begun. These new guidelines may have an impact on what health insurance providers will pay for.

.

So, instead of recommending them at age 40, the 2009 guidelines would have those women wait ten years to get their first mammograms? Those who lived that long, anyway! And if they were "out of policy", they may not be covered by your insurance, thus raising the cost of preventive care to women. Those nasty politicians who make mammograms harder to get for women and more expensive!

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has updated its recommendations for breast cancer screening. After using computer simulation models to project the results of different screening strategies, the task force said that they recommend the changes because they want to cut down on the "harms" and risks of testing, which they believe do not outweigh the benefits. They cite too many false positives, unnecessary biopsies, anxiety, or in short, overdiagnosis. Their November 2009 guidelines suggest:

*Women between 40 and 49 years old should not be having routine screening mammograms...

*Women who are 50 to 74 years old should be having a screening mammogram every other year...

*Women of any age should not be taught to do breast self-exams...

Oh, yeah. Because those self exams really eat away at needed medical resources! /sarc

And women over 74 will not have any specific guidelines, because...hey! If you've lived this long without it, what are the odds?? And, it's not like you have a long healthy life ahead of you anyway! Maybe this administration can get you a pill to ease your pain...before they take 50% of whatever you've earned during your lifetime!

Sidebar: Isn't that a conflict of interest for the government? If we let you die, we get half your stuff!

Fewer mammograms were proposed in 2009 as a cost saving measure, a precursor to Obamacare. Sure, more women might get breast cancer, but statistically, we'd be saving money! The cost benefit ratio was deemed acceptable to your benevolent government overlords.

You see how the whole idea of death panels was born? If the government provides healthcare for everyone, then it is up to them where and how to use their limited resources. The elderly and those with major illness will be sacrificed to the gross inefficiencies of yet another federal bureaucracy. If an individual is responsible for their own health care, then they are free to direct their own resources as they see fit.

But, wait! My liberal friends might say. A private insurance company could still reject your claim. Yes. And the consumer has a choice as to who they do business with and are also free to sue a company that refuses to make payments on lawful claims. Good luck changing companies when the government puts all other insurance companies out of business, and good luck suing the government for any grievance.

This is not to say there shouldn't be a needs based safety net for those in need. But, turning control of all of healthcare over to the government is to turn over one's very life over to the government. The government or one of its subsidiary bureaucracies may then either care for you or ignore you as they wish. That does not give us a government of the people, it gives us a people of the government.

In the words of Barack Obama (one of his faces anyway),

"So when you see politicians who are trying to take us back to the days when this care was more expensive and harder to get for women... you just remember we can't let them get away with it. "...It's the right thing to do.

Great campaign slogan for this Fall: "Anybody but Obama...It's the right thing to do!"